The government will today face demands for an independent inquiry into how a researcher linked the MMR jab to autism, after the disclosure that he failed to declare conflicts of interest six years ago.
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said an investigation similar to those into the deaths of babies at Bristol Royal Infirmary and the organs scandal at Alder Hey hospital on Merseyside was necessary to restore public confidence in the vaccine.
The General Medical Council will decide whether Andrew Wakefield should face a professional misconduct inquiry.
Dr Wakefield said yesterday that he would be contacting the GMC imminently.
"Serious allegations have been made against me in relation to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease," he said.
"It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated by the GMC.
"I not only welcome this, I insist on it and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the forthcoming week."
The medical journal the Lancet was told by the Sunday Times that Dr Wakefield had been working on a study, funded by £55,000 from the Legal Aid Board, to determine whether there was evidence to support action by parents claiming that the jab had harmed their children.
At the same time he was the lead investigator on a study into gut problems and autism.
The research report, pub lished in the Lancet in 1998, did not claim there was a proven link between MMR and autism. But at a press conference at the time Dr Wakefield suggested parents might be advised to opt for separate vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella.
Dr Harris, a supporter of the MMR jab, will press ministers for a wide-ranging inquiry into the research ethics committee at the Royal Free hospital in north London, the Legal Aid Board and the conduct of medical journals.
The health secretary, John Reid, has called on the GMC to conduct an inquiry "as a matter of urgency", but Dr Harris, who also sits on the British Medical Association's ethics committee, said this was not enough.
The Bristol and Alder Hey inquiries had made recommendations to the government and "were seen as establishing closure on the matters they investigated", he said "At the moment there is just a slanging match."
He said the public would "not necessarily take in the details" of the latest MMR row, and take-up could fall again.
In 1995 92.5% of children aged two had had their first MMR jab. Last year it was below 80%, and nearer 60% in parts of London. In the third quarter the percentage of children vaccinated rose, although it stayed under 80%.
"The GMC can only look at the professional conduct of medically qualified people and not administrators, scientific researchers, publishers and those who staff research ethics committees," Dr Harris said.
"The GMC will not be able to look at the role played by the Legal Aid Board and cannot make recommendations."
Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, defended his decision to reveal details of the investigation before the Sunday Times published yesterday.
He said the journal would not have published the research if it had known about the "fatal" conflict of interest.
"These allegations went to the very heart of the credibility of that 1998 Lancet paper," Dr Horton said. "It had nothing to do with a journalistic scoop. It had to do with my responsibility as a physician and editor of the journal that published that original study."
Jackie Fletcher of Justice Awareness & Basic Support, a group campaigning for the NHS to provide single jabs, said: "I think this is a witch-hunt. They seem to be going all out to undermine and discredit a physician who has examined some of the children."
The Legal Services Commission, the Legal Aid Board's successor, stopped funding families seeking legal action over MMR. The result of a judicial review of this decision is expected soon.
